---

30 Jun 2003 : Column 47W—continued

Surveillance Devices

Mr. Sanders: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether surveillance devices were discovered during the last refurbishment of the MOD buildings in Whitehall. [120140]

Mr. Caplin: All security issues are regularly reviewed, including the capability to detect surveillance devices during refurbishment. However I am unable to provide any further information in accordance with Exemption 1a of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information which relates to security.

Tigers Road Premises, South Wigston

Mr. Garnier: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has for the future use of the Territorial Army and cadet premises and land at Tigers Road, South Wigston, near Leicester. [122181]

Mr. Caplin: We have no plans to vary the current use or to dispose of the land known as Glen Parva Barracks, which is used as the Territorial Army (TA) Centre for B Squadron, The Royal Yeomanry, and a detachment from 118 Recovery Company, 104 Battalion REME (V). In addition, the County Headquarters of Leicestershire, Northhamptonshire and Rutland Army Cadet Force will continue to be based at the Barracks.

A recent decision has been taken to dispose of some land adjacent to Glen Parva Barracks, owned by the East Midland Reserve Forces and Cadet Association, but this will not have a impact on the activities of the units based at the TA Centre.

War Pensions

Mr. Dismore: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what estimate he has made of the number of claims under the war pensions scheme, accepted under the current burden of proof arrangements, which would be rejected under his proposed changes. [120002]

30 Jun 2003 : Column 48W

Mr. Caplin: The proposed changes would not affect claims from those currently eligible under the War Pension Scheme, or from those whose conditions arose before the introduction of the new scheme. The review team's evaluation of the changes proposed for the new scheme looked at the combined effect on a future cohort of claimants of those changes (including arrangements for time-limits and review for deterioration, as well as standard of proof) as against the combined provisions of the two existing schemes—the War Pension Scheme and the Armed Forces Pension Scheme. Its primary concern was whether, overall, the new arrangements would ensure eligibility for those claimants whose conditions might reasonably be regarded as attributable to service and whether the level of provision was appropriate to the pain and suffering incurred and to the expected effect on earnings capacity. It also looked at the overall budgetary implications for the Department. It did not consider the specific effect on numbers of the change to standard of proof. The important issue was the overall effect for those with a reasonable claim rather than the effect of one isolated aspect. The review team's conclusions were that its proposals would provide fairer, more comprehensible and administratively more simple arrangements with a better focus on those whose earning capacity has been significantly affected. As indicated, decisions on claims would be subject to an independent tribunal. The review team expects its proposals to be broadly cost neutral.

TREASURY

Benefits Cost

Vera Baird: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the cost of (a) benefits and (b) tax credits was (i) in the UK, (ii) in the North East region and (iii) in the Tees Valley as a percentage of GDP in the last year for which figures are available. [121826]

Dawn Primarolo: As described in Chapter C of Budget 2003, the 2001–02 cost of social security benefits was 10.1 per cent. of GDP. Similarly, tax credits (including those treated as expenditure and those as negative taxation) were 1.1 per cent. of GDP. Child allowances in Income Support and Jobseekers' Allowance are included in the latter figure rather than the former, to give consistent definitions over the period of the Budget tables.

Comparable figures are not available for regions or sub-regions.

Council Tax

Mr. Edward Davey: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Truro and St. Austell (Matthew Taylor) of 10 June 2003, Official Report, columns 746–47W, on council tax, what the council tax was as a percentage of gross income for (a) pensioner households and (b) non-pensioner households in each income decile in England for the financial year 2001–02. [121737]

John Healey: The information requested falls within the Responsibility of the National Statistician. I have asked him to reply.

30 Jun 2003 : Column 49W

Letter from Len Cook to Mr. Edward Davey, dated 30 June 2003:

As National Statistician, I have been asked to reply to your recent question asking for a break down of council tax as a percentage of gross income in England in 2001–02 by (a) pensioner and (b) non-pensioner households consistent with estimates given in the previous answer of 10 June to Matthew Taylor MP for households in Great Britain. (121737).

Estimates for council taxes and income are based on the analysis "The effects of taxes and benefits on household income 2001–02" produced by the ONS and published on the National Statistics website on April 11 2003 and in Economics Trends in the May 2003 edition. The analysis can be obtained from the House of Commons Library. This includes measures of income inequality for the United Kingdom as a whole based on data from the Expenditure and Food Survey. Sample sizes for pensioner households are only sufficient to allow a breakdown to be given for England not for Scotland or Wales, and by quintiles of income distribution not by decile.

Pensioner households have been defined as those where the Household Reference Person is retired or unoccupied and aged 65 or more and male, or 60 years of age or more and female, and

30 Jun 2003 : Column 50W

economically inactive. Non-pensioner households are all other households. The Household Reference Person is identified during the interview and is defined as the member of the household who:

a. owns the household accommodation, or

b. is legally responsible for the rent of the accommodation, or

c. has the household accommodation as an emolument or perquisite, or

d. has the household accommodation by virtue of some relationship to the owner who is not a member of the household.

If there are joint householders, the Household Reference Person will be the householder with the highest income. If the income is the same, then the eldest householder is taken.

The following table shows the estimated gross and net council tax for pensioner and non-pensioner households in England for each income quintile where households are ranked by equivalised disposable income. The net council tax figures are gross council tax less benefits and discounts. The table shows the equivalised disposable income quintile point boundaries, which have been calculated separately for the pensioner and non-pensioner households.

For example, the 1st quintile point for the pensioner households is the income below which one fifth of all pensioner households are estimated to lie and similarly for the non-pensioner households. The quintile point boundaries differ between the two groups, particularly between the fourth and fifth quintiles.

Council tax as a percentage of gross income for pensioner1 and non-pensioner households, 2001–02, EnglandPercentage

			Quintile groups of all households ranked by equivalised disposable income
	Households	Bottom		2nd		3rd		4th		Top	All households
Quintile points(8) (equivalised	Pensioner		9,230		11,539		13,998		8,548
disposable income £ per year)	Non-pensioner		11,773		17,264		23,332		32,276
Gross council tax	Pensioner	8.3		4.9		2.9		2.3		1.6	2.8
	Non-pensioner	7.4		4.5		3.6		2.8		1.8	3.1
Net council tax(9)	Pensioner	6.1		3.4		2.1		1.9		1.6	2.2
	Non-pensioner	4.6		3.9		3.5		2.7		1.8	2.8

⁽⁷⁾ Household reference person is retired or unoccupied and over minimum state pension age.

⁽⁸⁾ Equivalised disposable income at the boundary point between two quintile groups.

⁽⁹⁾ Net councils taxes after deducting benefits and discounts.

Source:

Office for National tatistis, based on the analysis 'The effects of taxes and benefits on household income', published on the ONS website and in Economic Trends No. 594 May 2003.

Customs Seizures

Simon Hughes: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) how many seizures of (a) firearms, (b) drugs and (c) other dangerous goods were recorded at UK ports and airports in the last five years; [120596]

(2) on how many occasions in each of the last five years (a) firearms, (b) drugs and (c) other dangerous goods were intercepted in the post. [120761]

John Healey: The following table gives HM Customs and Excise seizures of drugs, firearms and other offensive weapons over the five years up to 2001–02, the last complete year for which figures are available.

Financial Year	Heroin (Kgs)	Cocaine (Kgs)	Other Class A (Kgs)	Ecstasy (Kgs)	Cannabis (Kgs)	Firearms seized(10) (Number)	Other offensive weapons seized(11) (Number)
2001–02	1,489	6,075	113	1,330	67,061	2,015	2,045
2000–01	2,043	7,420	305	1,060	41,776	2,697	Figures not available
1999–2000	2,707	2,525	1,900	800	77,853	1,911	Figures not available
1998–1999	594	3,540	1,542	Not separately recorded	62,028	2,689	Figures not available
1997–1998	1,821	2,356	1,548	Not separately recorded	80,380	5.461	Figures not available

⁽¹⁰⁾ Includes self-defence sprays and stun guns.

⁽¹¹⁾ Includes flick knives, butterfly knives, knuckle dusters, telescopic truncheons, death stars, blow pipes and sword sticks.

A breakdown of seizures for ports and airports and postal depots for the last five years could only be obtained at disproportionate cost.

---